Fuel Dump
(web).jpg)
It might need a revolution in the water-heavy way we process our own waste, but there's a lot of potential here, isn't there? If we need a massive infrastructural rearrangement, why not make it inherently sustainable.
If I'm talking shite, please tell me. (Please see very informative comment by Anonymous (Dr. J. Singmaster), below)
Elsewhere - despite continuing improvements in the technology, the "demand" ( now there's a can of semantic worms) for wind turbines declines .
An early-doors pointer to the potential problems we might face, should a nuclear future coincide with further economic collapse; Will capital run for the hills when the bills outweigh the profits and the dangers are on someone else's doorstep?
Posts
4 comments:
Here I go again.
First, this for pleasure, includes great Americana pix, the good side of the US:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/3/727316/-Yes,-Kids,-DO-Try-This-At-Home!
Now the bad news: (1) bats in crisis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/03bats.html?ref=science
(2) India nuclear pipe leak (in case anyone thought nuclear is OK, a cautionary tale):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all
(3) swine flu in Canadian pigs (I like the bit about admitting what one doesn't know):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/3/727323/-USDA-reports-H1N1-in-Canadian-swine
I do NOT understand why you aren't everybody's favorite environmental site.
Thanks Susan. Indeed, few have ventured here. But it's easier for me if I can count the number of visitors without having to remove my socks. Its cosier that way. Somewhat pointless, in the grand scheme, but cosy. I'll keep plugging away though. You never can tell.
Not pointless at all; we need someone willing to plumb the depths just a bit ahead of the crowd to show us the way down.
Thank you for the virtually daily reminder that the the species with two sapiens in the name is anything but. It makes it somehow all worth while!
While burning waste is a little better than composting as the set up generates useable energy, it is still reemitting GHGs, just recycling trapped carbon that could by pyrolyzed instead to get about 50% of the carbon present converted to inert charcoal. The other 50% of the carbon present when pyrolyzed, gets expelled out of the basically closed chamber(No oxygen to cause burning) as a distillate of various organic chemicals that can be trapped and refined to use as fuel or raw materials to make drugs. Pyrolysis will like burning destroy germs, most toxics(Some may need to be trapped out of the distillate) and drugs so that can greatly reduce problems of water pollution arising from our present handling of organic and sewage solid wastes. And also greatly reduce costs for new dumps as no monitoring for the escaping of those hazards would be necessary. Burning, unfortunately, will have new hazards in the smoke requiring either ignoring until too late or expensive trapping. Dr. J. Singmaster
Post a Comment